| View previous topic :: View next topic |
TelMiles
In: London
|
|
 |
|
Y Gododdin is an "Ancient" Welsh poem which describes the battle of Cathraeth (Catterick in Yorkshire) where a hand-picked force of 300 Celtic warriors take on a larger Saxon army which is said to have been 100,000 strong. Despite a heroic effort where the warriors slay seven times their own number of the enemy, they are overwhelmed and the "barbarian" Saxons win...hang on, sounds curiously similar to the battle of Thermopylae and the 300 Spartans. Had someone been reading their Herodotus when they wrote Y Gododdin?
_________________
Against all Gods.
|
|
  |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Allegedly ancient Welsh poems have long been an interest of mine -- see Ossian for the Scottish equivalents -- so just to kick things off, Tel, perhaps you might say what the antecedents of this poem are.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| TelMiles wrote: | | Had someone been reading their Herodotus when they wrote Y Goddodin? |
Or is Herodotus not who we think he is?
And are both battles fictions?
This is an exceptionally good catch, Tel! And it touches on something I've brought up to our group in the *secret* rooms of the initiates. You see, there was another battle of Thermopylae.
Supposedly, in the year 279 BC, an army of Gauls (Frenchmen we say?), led by a fellow named Brenus (whom, Wikipedia assures us, is most definitely not to be confused with the Brenus who sacked Rome) tried to invade Greece via this very same pass. He too was held back by an out-numbered army of Greeks, this time led by a guy named Calippus.
So we've got the same thing happening twice. It's possible. I guess.
But here's something more that's just a bit weird.
You'll remember that in the first battle, the Greek Army was led by one King Leonidas. Well, in the second battle, the Gauls were part of a three-pronged invasion of Asia Minor, one prong of which was led by one Leonorious.
There's a LOT more that's weird about the events of 279 BC that I'll have to share with you later. Maybe, if you keep coming up with stuff like what you got in this post, I'll send you my thoughts in a private message.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TelMiles
In: London
|
|
|
|
Y Goddodin survives in one manuscript that is kept in Wales. It is a 13th century manuscript and is said to be a copy of a 9th century manuscript (why?), but presumably that must have been a copy too as the poet it is attributed to, Aneirin (or similar spelling), lived in the 6th century. Interestingly, the poem is said to mention Arthur, although this could be a later interpolation.
Ishmael, there was also a third battle of Thermopylae, in 191BC the Seleucid Empire tried to hold the Romans there, but the Romans won.
I would be very interested in hearing more of your ideas.
_________________
Against all Gods.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| TelMiles wrote: | | Ishmael, there was also a third battle of Thermopylae, in 191BC the Seleucid Empire tried to hold the Romans there, but the Romans won. |
Yup. I Wikipedied that one too. But the parallels are not so strong. Still...it's part of the data-set and it might just be the piece of evidence that demonstrates I'm completely on the wrong path -- so I'd better pay attention to it as well.
| I would be very interested in hearing more of your ideas. |
You will.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Y Goddodin survives in one manuscript that is kept in Wales. It is a 13th century manuscript |
Yeah, we've heard that one before. Try to find out who first claimed it was thirteenth century (ie does it appear in, say, a thirteenth century inventory) or does it first pop up in a Tudor/Stewart library claiming to be thirteenth century?
| Interestingly, the poem is said to mention Arthur |
Well, this is highly bogus. Arthur was all the rage in the thirteenth century and was all the rage again under the Tudors but if a sixth century poet is mentioning him then Arthur's existence is proved once-and-for-all. Ho ho.
| although this could be a later interpolation |
Oh come on! If somebody is later interpolating this into an ancient poem of great importance then it's obvious he's "interpolating" the entire poem.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
The 'Arthur' reference in Y Gododdin is singular in both senses. He's only referred to once, indirectly, and it's a very strange, bloodthirsty mention - "He (Gwawrddur) fed black ravens on the rampart of a fortress, though he was no Arthur".
Not only does it not fit in with the predominantly chivalric image of the later Arthur but it wasn't even a contemporary reference; assuming the Gododdin was genuine it was written at the earliest in the ninth century, at least 300 years after the supposed events took place.
| Because the reference to Arthur appears only in one version of Y Gododdin, the scholarly consensus is that what would otherwise have been the earliest reference to Arthur is a later interpolation. |
How many 'versions' were there, Tel?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TelMiles
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | although this could be a later interpolation |
Oh come on! If somebody is later interpolating this into an ancient poem of great importance then it's obvious he's "interpolating" the entire poem. |
I agree Mick! Y Goddodin was "discovered" by Evan Evans who lived from 1731 to 1788. The story goes he basically went around Wales collecting old manuscripts and copying them up, once he had "translated" them obviously. He was a Welsh nationalist who lived in London and who was interested in the "Celtic" history of Britain. He is also the one that "discovered" Taliesin and other ancient and medieval Welsh works. O yea, he was also an accomplished (classical) poet.
Jigsaw's aint this easy.
_________________
Against all Gods.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TelMiles
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Hatty wrote: | | How many 'versions' were there, Tel? |
I have to concede that I don't know. All the literature I have says about the 13th century manuscript in Wales. I assume there were more though.
_________________
Against all Gods.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Well done, Tell. Another entire industry put to the sword. You're right, it's mostly a piece of piss.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TelMiles
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | And are both battles fictions?
You'll remember that in the first battle, the Greek Army was led by one King Leonidas. Well, in the second battle, the Gauls were part of a three-pronged invasion of Asia Minor, one prong of which was led by one Leonorious. |
Well, the tomb of Leonidas resides in current day Sparta, and a monument to him was still in existence until the reign of the Roman Emperor Tiberius, which shows an independent source for the existence of Leonidas.
Also, Herodotus outlines his own methodology which was to talk to as many survivors of the war that he could.
Who would you say would benefit from inventing this tale?
_________________
Against all Gods.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| TelMiles wrote: | | Also, Herodotus outlines his own methodology which was to talk to as many survivors of the war that he could. |
Luke says the same thing of his Gospel and of the Acts of the Apostles. Yet both works are total inventions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TelMiles
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | Luke says the same thing of his Gospel and of the Acts of the Apostles. Yet both works are total inventions. |
Maybe Luke (or whoever) based the Bible on more ancient manuscripts. ie Herodotus...Egyptian Book of the Dead. We certainly have a precedent for it: Y Goddodin.
_________________
Against all Gods.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
The parallel you both seek to make is surely faulty. Tel, it is (I presume) the fact that Luke makes the claim of eye-witness authenticity not whether his account is legitimately drawn from elsewhere. And, Ishmael, is there not the difference that Luke is reporting events that he must have known he had not actually witnessed whereas Herodotus gives the impression that he is at least self-consciously striving for objectivity.
A small point: I often read that nobody can find Sparta nowadays such is the paucity of its remains. But I read just as often that such and such has been located at Sparta. What is the actual present status of the site of Sparta?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | A small point: I often read that nobody can find Sparta nowadays such is the paucity of its remains. But I read just as often that such and such has been located at Sparta. What is the actual present status of the site of Sparta? |
Yes. I've heard the same thing. That no one knows where Sparta is. And I also seem to recall something else that's odd about Sparta -- that the city disappears from history for about 500 years -- then comes back just as it was.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
